Baltic Amber Harvestman Types (Arachnida: Opiliones: Eupnoi and Dyspnoi)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fossil Record 9(2) (2006), 167–182 / DOI 10.1002/mmng.200600006 Baltic amber harvestman types (Arachnida: Opiliones: Eupnoi and Dyspnoi) Jason A. Dunlop* Museum fu¨ r Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universita¨t zu Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany Received 15 November 2005, accepted 24 January 2006 Published online 17 July 2006 With 6 figures Key words: Arachnida, Opiliones, Eupnoi, Dyspnoi, Baltic amber, Palaeogene, biogeography. Abstract Baltic amber eupnoid and dyspnoid types (Arachnida: Opiliones) in the Berendt collection are redescribed from their reposi- tory in the Museum fu¨ r Naturkunde, Berlin. Type specimens of Caddo dentipalpis (Koch & Berendt, 1854), Dicranopalpus ramiger (Koch & Berendt, 1854), Nemastoma (?) incertum Koch & Berendt, 1854, Mitostoma (?) denticulatum (Koch & Berendt, 1854) and Histricostoma (?) tuberculatum (Koch & Berendt, 1854) are all redescribed and the first photographs and camera lucida drawings of this material are presented. N. (?) incertum is removed from synonymy with M. (?) denticulatum. The status of the other Baltic amber harvestman types and their affinities are discussed. The type of Sabacon bachofeni Roewer, 1939 (= S. claviger (Menge, 1854)) held in the Bavarian State collection, Munich is also redescribed here, but the repository of three other Roewer harvestman types and all of Menge’s types remains uncertain. The problematic Cheiroma- chus coriaceus Menge, 1854 is considered a nomen dubium,asisPhalangium succineum Presl, 1822, which may not even be a harvestman. Schlu¨ sselwo¨ rter: Arachnida, Opiliones, Eupnoi, Dyspnoi, Pala¨ogen, Baltischer Bernstein, Biogeographie, Weberknechte, Spin- nentiere. Zusammenfassung Typenmaterial der Weberknecht-Gruppen Eupnoi und Dyspnoi (Arachnida: Opiliones) vom Baltischen Bernstein aus der Berendt-Sammlung des Museums fu¨ r Naturkunde Berlin wurde bearbeitet. Dabei wurde das Typusmaterial von Caddo denti- palpis (Koch & Berendt, 1854), Dicranopalpus ramiger (Koch & Berendt, 1854), Nemastoma (?) incertum Koch & Berendt, 1854, Mitostoma (?) denticulatum (Koch & Berendt, 1854) und Histricostoma (?) tuberculatum (Koch & Berendt, 1854) revi- diert und die ersten Fotografien und camera lucida-Zeichnungen dieses Materials hergestellt. N. (?) incertum wurde aus der Synonymie von M. (?) denticulatum herausgenommen. Der Status der anderen Weberknecht Typen aus dem Baltischen Bern- stein und ihre Stellung werden diskutiert. Sabacon bachofeni Roewer, 1939 (= S. claviger (Menge, 1854)) wird anhand des Holotypus aus der Bayerischen Staatssammlung Mu¨ nchen wiederbeschrieben. Der Aufbewahrungsort dreier weiterer Weber- knecht-Typen von Roewer und sa¨mtlicher Typen von Menge bleibt weiterhin unklar. Der problematische Cheiromachus coria- ceus Menge, 1854 wird als nomen dubium interpretiert; gleiches gilt fu¨r Phalangium succineum Presl, 1822, welcher vielleicht gar kein Weberknecht ist. # 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Introduction for a review and further literature. Most of the known inclusions come from Baltic amber, which Amber is the richest source of fossil harvestmen is now usually assigned to an Eocene age (c. 44– (Arachnida: Opiliones); see Dunlop (in press) 49 Ma). Baltic harvestman inclusions were ori- * e-mail: [email protected] # 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 168 Dunlop, J. A., Baltic amber harvestman types ginally described by Koch & Berendt (1854), Material and methods Menge (1854) and Roewer (1939). A further, widely overlooked, name was published by Presl Koch & Berendt’s types (1822). It should also be mentioned that Berendt Berendt (1845) noted that some of the amber material he (1830) assigned some Baltic amber inclusions to was working on was in the “Mineralien-Kabinet” of Berlin. Phalangium cancroides (Linnaeus, 1758) – which In the same paper he listed species names from the forth- is in fact a Recent pseudoscorpion, currently in coming (Koch & Berendt 1854) study, rendering the 1845 names nomen nuda without diagnoses, figures or indications. the genus Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 – and to the The “Mineralien-Kabinet” was part of the Friederich- common, Recent harvestman, Phalangium opilio Wilhelm (later the Humboldt) University in Berlin and was th Linnaeus, 1761. Although listed as an inclusion eventually combined at the end of the 19 century with the Zoologisches Museum Berlin to form the present Museum by Scudder (1891: 279), this sole example of an fu¨ r Naturkunde Berlin (MfN). Despite Petrunkevitch’s (1958, amber fossil assignable to a living harvestman p. 103) claim (at least for spiders) that the important type collections of both Koch & Berendt and Menge were lost, all species has not been substantiated in subsequent except one of Koch & Berendt’s harvestman types were work and is probably erroneous. recently confirmed as being in the MfN. Keilbach (1982) expli- Baltic amber harvestmen were reviewed by citly listed these inclusions as Berlin specimens under the unusual acronym “NPB”, specifying them as either “Original Stare˛ga (2002) based on material in Polish collec- Berendt” or, in one case, “Coll. Ku¨ hl”. The harvestmen were tions. He recognised nine valid species (Presl’s also listed under both their original and current names by name was missed), two of which he considered Spahr (1993). The Berendt fossils were formally purchased in 1873 and hard to place systematically. While Stare˛ga’s con- are associated with hand-written labels indicating the original clusions can be largely supported, he did not name and the relevant figure from the 1854 publication. make reference to the important type material of There are also repository numbers (listed below), possibly added later as they are in a different ink colour and style to Koch & Berendt (1854) held in Berlin. Examina- the rest of the label. These older numbers should not be con- tion of these types revealed that the original fused with a modern numbering scheme introduced for the authors’ illustrations are in fact reconstructions fossil arthropod collection in Berlin under the acronym MB.A. Koch & Berendt’s material is over 150 years old. The and differ, sometimes significantly, from the way amber has oxidised somewhat and is now rather dark which these name-bearing specimens appear in the ma- does not make the animals easy to photograph. Frequently trix. This means that subsequent authors who the amber has surface scratches or internal cracks, which occasionally obscure the inclusion. In some cases the amber have proposed transfers or synonymies (Bishop is quite brittle, fractured or even broken. Specimens were & Crosby 1924; Petrunkevitch 1955; Stare˛ga photographed using a microscope-attached Canon Power Shot G6 digital camera and processed using Adobe Photo- 1976, 2002) have done so based on somewhat shop#, and drawn with a camera lucida attachment on a Leica idealised pictures of the animals. Koch & Berendt’s MZ12 stereomicroscope. The fossils were compared to extant original material is very old and its condition is material in the Berlin collections and the literature – espe- cially Martens’ (1978) excellent summary of extant central in some cases poor (see below). Here the first European harvestmen. Familial and generic nomenclature photographs and camera lucida drawings of all follows the online catalogue of Kury (2003). the available Koch & Berendt’s harvestman type Unfortunately, the type material of one species cited to “Coll. Ku¨ hl.” – Opilio ovalis Koch & Berendt, 1854 – could species are offered as a basis for future work on not be found in a recent search of the Ku¨ hl collection in Ber- Palaeogene–Neogene amber Opiliones, along lin. This is despite the fact that Keilbach (1982) marked it with the one traceable Roewer (1939) type. with a “ þ ” in his paper to indicate that he had personally seen the specimen during a tour of museum collections in Much undescribed material exists from both Baltic 1979. The present whereabouts of the type remains unclear amber (e.g. Larsson 1978; Weitschat & Wichard and it may have been misplaced. Ku¨ hl’s amber collection was 2002, pl. 12) and the German Bitterfeld amber (see purchased by the Berlin museum in 1888 and while there are some fairly old arachnid types (e.g. mites) among it, no har- also Dunlop & Giribet 2003). vestmen were found with labels, or other indications, that The single Baltic amber laniatorid harvestman – they might be Koch & Berendt’s original material dating th a predominantly southern hemisphere clade – from the middle of the 19 century. was recently redescribed and assigned to a new (fossil) genus, Proholoscotolemon Ubick & Dun- Menge’s types lop, 2005, probably closely related to the extant Koch & Berendt’s (1854) study was posthumously published European cladonychiid Holoscotolemon Roewer, by Anton Menge from Danzig who also described additional 1915. The present paper complements this work species (Menge 1854) as footnotes to this paper. Crawford by focusing on the remaining harvestman subor- (1992, p. 15) implied that Menge’s (1854) harvestman types are also in Berlin, but they could not be found in this collec- ders recorded from Baltic amber, i.e. Eupnoi and tion. Indeed Menge’s material is cited as having been in the Dyspnoi. These include the typical ‘daddy long- Westpreußische Provinzialmuseum, Danzig (= Gdan´ sk, Po- legs’ type of harvestmen found widely across the land); see e.g. Bronn (1853–1856). After the war the Gdan´ sk material seems to have become split up. Traces of it can be Palaearctic today. found in the Museum